...that Michael Lerner stop talking or writing for the remainder of the 2008 election cycle.
Because honestly, I don't think this is going to convince anybody of anything. Except that he likes to use big windy words. And that maybe they should vote for one of those other candidates with less flaky-sounded endorsements. Honestly, what was the Chronicle thinking? Did they do it on purpose? Are they seekretly hoping it's Clinton vs. McCain, and thus they got normal-sounding people to write their endorsements?
These are the first two paragraphs of Lerner's piece.
I enthusiastically support Barack Obama, the first serious spiritual progressive candidate for the presidency. Once in office, Obama's discourse of hope, challenging narrow technocratic consciousness, will open the possibility for serious social movements to push him beyond the constraints of Democratic Party spinelessness.Spiritual progressives want a New Bottom Line so that institutions, social practices, even our own personal behavior is seen as efficient, rational and productive, not only to the extent that they maximize money and power (the Old Bottom Line) but also to the extent that they maximize love and caring for others, kindness and generosity, ethical and ecological sensitivity, and enhance our capacity to respond to others as embodiments of the sacred and to the universe with awe, wonder and radical amazement.
Uh... yeah. Right. Please, somebody... just make it stop.
OK, now that I've looked online, it seems that the Chronicle may have run different opinion pieces in different markets. This is better...
